AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: [-] Airline Merger,More aircraft in used aircraft pg,bigger dem for 2nd airports  (Read 918 times)

Offline Mr Yoda

  • Members
  • Posts: 847
Well why don't we do airline mergering in this game like recently American Airlines mergered with US airways?
And if it is a busy world like MT8 why don't have more mid haul aircraft like MD80-90, B737, and A320?
And lastly why don't we have bigger route demands for ex Moscow Sheremetyevo to Milan Linate? The demand in real life on this route is higher than its on the game.
???
fedot12345
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 05:13:37 PM by sami »

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
In short...

1) To maintain competitive balance as adding equity and ability to purchase other airlines adds a lot of complexity that is low on the priority list right now.  City-based demand and other elements that are more core to operating an airline are on the agenda earlier.  I do imagine that airline merging/purchasing may be built in at some point in the future, but it is many years away to say the least.
2) There are a ton of mid-haul aircraft - the ones you mention, particularly 737 and A32x are the two most popular aircraft in the game, so I believe your comment is unfounded.  If you are referring to the lack of these planes on the used market, it is because of their very popularity.
3) Route demands only generally reflect real-world PAX allocations - typically the number of passengers is driven by the relatively overall demand to that airport and less by specific route to route considerations (although there have been some tweaks in this regard).  More progress on this front has not been made due to the efforts around city-based demand which will create a more flexible and world specific PAX allocation.

Hope that helps.

Offline Mr Yoda

  • Members
  • Posts: 847
I mean there are lack of B737 and A320 due to its popularity. Cant the game make more plans if the aircraft family is really popular?
Thanks

Offline Sami

  • Administrator
  • Members
  • Posts: 14535
    • AirwaySim - Are you the next Richard Branson?
Please read the instructions of this forum before posting.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 05:15:56 PM by sami »

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
production lines expand when there is high demand so that already takes place. 

One of the challenges of AWS is you can't always have the perfect plane - it's about finding the right price/availability combination that will work.  Fokker 100, B717, etc. are slightly smaller but have shorter production lines so you may want to try those.


Offline Mr Yoda

  • Members
  • Posts: 847
perhaps...

exchlbg

  • Former member
Request forum is for general ideas to make gameplay better or more effective for all players, not a wishlist of your own needs if your tactics seem to fail.
Just having "more of everything" is NO idea at all, just whining.
And if I hear one more complaint over "unrealistic" demands between any two airports, Iīm going mad. This was explained and discussed and chewed to the bone excessively and easy to be recognized by anybody enjoying this game as long as you. Noone is interested in AEROFLOT schedule and traffic numbers.
Merging: also this topic is coming back repeatedly and, naturally turned down.Please make clear, how mergers are supposed to make gameplay better and how this could be easily implemented without throwing whole system apart. How should this new merged company be managed, by two players together (thatīs what "merging" means, otherwise it would be a "take-over", also on the wishlist of some dreamers) ? Sounds you pushed some words around you just heard in world news without any plan of consequences.
Although Samiīs answer just said enough, I couldnīt resist to give this an additional shot.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 06:33:36 PM by exchlbg »

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
hey exchibg...take it easy...

exchlbg

  • Former member
Some days I just canīt.... >:(

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
Yeah I get that...

when I get worked up about such things, my wife tells me to take one of my 250 aircraft (preferably the 22 year old POS) and crash it into the ocean somewhere...i told her that Sami hadn't built in that functionality yet.  Scrapping planes just doesn't do it for me.


exchlbg

  • Former member
Now, THATīs an example of a reasonable request I would give all my cents to !
And itīs real-life, too.I just saw a report about an frustrated airline pilot ramming his plane into the swamps on purpose.(Silk Airways in Indonesia).

Offline hmellouli

  • Members
  • Posts: 590
as horrible as this may sound, building disruptive events like crashes would be great. so in this case a crash would probably or obviously include a major CI hit, insurance costs, etc. part of that would probably be ground incurstions and other small things like tail strikes involving two airliners (which happens more that anyone would think), etc, with the MX and insurance costs and CI hits involved. its more difficulty level adjustments.

at leaset this way we could put some use to the insurance money that we keep paying, otherwiase I want to be the guy that runs the AWS insurance company  :)

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
I really struggle with whether or not disasters should be included - how do you balance them in a way that makes the game more fun and doesn't just seem like the computer gods are punishing you.  The risk factors would have to be very transparent (some type of crash likelihood by airplane type) and the impact meaningful, but not life threatening to the airline.  Also there's a question of...if plane type x crashes, does it affect everyone who flies that plane?  That way you could be adversely affected by someone else's lack of maintenance.  Given the alliance competition, I could see one alliance choosing not to use a popular type of plane except for the intent to try and cause a crash that would adversely impact another alliance.  All sorts of interesting (bad?) possibilities there.  Net/net, I think I would rather keep the disasters out of the game unless they didn't have a significant adverse impact (but then why include them if they are not meaningful...any ideas on this?

exchlbg

  • Former member
I would include them (only a few per year) and make them more likely to happen to companies that treat staff or material badly.
It should include the loss of an airplane and costs tied to this and  a severe hit on CI, but only for company , not for aircraft type, as this would be too complicated and also in real life
tragedies were mostly tied to airlines, not to planes (except the DC-10īs and that first British jet, whose name I just forgot).
Some companies will handle the hit, others wonīt, as in real life.Percentage of possible tragedies should reflect real life figures somewhat.

Online dmoose42

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
You mean the Comet?  Those planes are great in AWS - cause there's no risk of breaking up in mid-air due to metal fatigue...don't even need to fly one of those into a swamp in order to get a disaster...


exchlbg

  • Former member
Thatīs the one. Maybe fatalities may also be more likely to freshly introduced models besides those treated badly (if you think of the Dreamliner and the A380, they were close to a fatality ) as a downside for owning a modern fleet and still empty production lines.
There one other thing at the positive end of line comes to mind: to give flights with very new models (during first or first two years) a bonus over those with common ones because many people book flights on the "most modern" models as an attraction.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 10:07:15 AM by exchlbg »

Offline Monica

  • Members
  • Posts: 694
I have a suspicion crashes aren't implemented because of issues with the different manufacturers, but Sami would have to answer that one. Personally I'd like to see it implemented too. We need more events.  :)


brique

  • Former member
You mean the Comet?  Those planes are great in AWS - cause there's no risk of breaking up in mid-air due to metal fatigue...don't even need to fly one of those into a swamp in order to get a disaster...


The metal fatigue issue was resolved; by the Mk4 it was no worse for that than any other aircraft of the period. Alas, by then Boeing had grabbed a major slice of the market and the Comet never recovered its early lead. A great technological lead thrown away by some bright spark saying :' You know, square windows would look really cooool....'

Still, nothing much changes, some equally bright spark went for the over-grown lap-top battery packs for the Dreamliner, even with their well understood and documented over-heating issues...

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.